Moderator: sent to www-forms@w3.org and www-forms-editor@w3.org
----- Original Message -----
From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
To: steven.pemberton@cwi.nl ; xforms@yahoogroups.com ; www-forms@w3.org ; www-forms-editor@w3.org ; w3c-forms@w3.org
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:32 PM
Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: src attribute on xforms:instance - link or inclusion?
I had asked:
> In thinking further about the src attribute on xforms:instance I wonder
> whether this is not a "link" but rather should be an include.
Steven Pemberton replied (somewhat snipped):
XInclude is not a REC by the way. It is only at CR at the moment.
Correction accepted.
Even
worse, it normatively references an out-of-date XPointer. We are not even
allowed to normatively refer to a specification more than one step behind
us. But that notwithstanding, XInclude would be rather heavyweight for the
role it would have to play, and would be a tough requirement for handheld
devices.
Surely the first question to address here is whether or not what is being done is an include or a link?
I notice you don't address that question.
If the process is an include rather than a link don't you agree that expressing it as a link is a little bit of a kludge?
(And by the way, XInclude has an href attribute which is also not an
xlink:href, so what would be the win from your point of view? And if it's OK
for them, why is it not OK for XForms?)
Well, if my suggestion is correct, that the process may be an include not a link then there would be no reason to think of XLink in this context.
I appreciate that your responses, at this stage, are informal but I would be interested to know if you consider that this is genuinely a "link" with "embed". If it's not then might it not be sensible to revisit the issue?
Regards
Andrew Watt